What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

RB Ezekiel Elliott, LAC (4 Viewers)

davearm said:
You can go back to my first reply to you to see my point: you're wrong to suggest no charges filed = not guilty. 

People that have committed crimes avoid being charged every day.
Click to expand...
Who is arguing that? As I previously stated, I could accuse you domestic violence. Just because no charges are filed doesn't mean you aren't guilty. 

However, in this country, the burden is on the accuser to prove that you committed a crime. If that accuser was caught lying to police, making up an entire fake story of a supposed attack, and asking a friend to also lie to the police.... why would we, as human beings not then come to the conclusion that he is innocent? As I said before, we are innocent until proven guilty. What I stated in my first post was in regards to the optics of how guilty he "looks" in the actual case. I stated that he didn't even have to prove that he wasn't guilty because he was never arrested and charges were never found. It always looks BETTER if they don't even have enough evidence to bring charges on you, than it does if they actually find enough evidence to bring charges, but you beat them in court.  Especially when the biggest reason for not bringing charges upon the accused is the inconsistent information that came from the accuser. 

 
Rebecca Lopez‏Verified account @rlopezwfaa  10m10 minutes ago

Just spoke with Clerk in Judge Crotty's court says Zeke hearing is over and says a ruling will be made by 5pm ET today.
Click to expand...

 
WiDDoW_MaKeR said:
Who is arguing that? As I previously stated, I could accuse you domestic violence. Just because no charges are filed doesn't mean you aren't guilty. 

However, in this country, the burden is on the accuser to prove that you committed a crime. If that accuser was caught lying to police, making up an entire fake story of a supposed attack, and asking a friend to also lie to the police.... why would we, as human beings not then come to the conclusion that he is innocent? As I said before, we are innocent until proven guilty. What I stated in my first post was in regards to the optics of how guilty he "looks" in the actual case. I stated that he didn't even have to prove that he wasn't guilty because he was never arrested and charges were never found. It always looks BETTER if they don't even have enough evidence to bring charges on you, than it does if they actually find enough evidence to bring charges, but you beat them in court.  Especially when the biggest reason for not bringing charges upon the accused is the inconsistent information that came from the accuser. 
Click to expand...
Look, the post I was first replying to was the one in which you said since no charged were filed, "the crime (did) not even take place in the eyes of the investigators".

That's just flat out wrong and belies an ignorance of the whole process.  In all likelihood, the criminal investigators probably believe that Elliott *did* commit a crime.

 
This is similar to civil cases where the burden of proof is much less. My cousin is a prosecutor & they drop cases all the time where the DA's office believes the accused is guilty. For good reason, our justice system is set up to err on the side of the accused so there needs to be certain things in place before you can find someone guilty regardless of whether they actually are or not. Prime example is the outcome of the OJ trial.

Even as a Cowboys fan, I believe there's probably some history of domestic abuse to some degree. We'll never know, but the NFL did an investigation & concluded there likely was domestic abuse. It is what it is. 

Anyway, I'm of the opinion Dallas should've just taken the suspension at the beginning of the season. They're flirting on the edge of disaster because Zeke isn't getting out of it & they have a better shot at a Super Bowl next season. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
davearm said:
  In all likelihood, the criminal investigators probably believe that Elliott *did* commit a crime.
Click to expand...
Really? I would love for you to explain this comment. Especially considering that there hasn't been a single piece of hard evidence that incriminated Elliott in this case. I have a STRONG feeling that you won't reply with an explanation. 

BTW, I stand by every comment that I made. You are taking my quote out of context, where I had already explained exactly what I was referencing toward. By saying "in the eyes of the investigators" I meant, clearly they didn't find evidence to prove that it happened. The only real evidence in this case, is the evidence that directly conflicts with the story of the accuser. At no point in this entire investigation has Zeke been accused of lying, covering up, etc... Not only has he cooperated with the entire case, he even went above and beyond with his honesty in revealing that he did drugs in college, which he didn't really need to do. That only speaks volumes of his honesty, that he was willing to admit something that stains his character, even when he really could have avoided that question, or lied. So, considering that all of the evidence is on Elliott's side.... and that the evidence conflicts with the accuser... AND the fact that there is clear evidence of the accuser asking a friend to also lie to the police... on top of the fact that more evidence came out later where she was talking to another friend about blackmailing Elliott for money with their sex tapes.... I would LOVE to hear why you believe that the investigators probably believe that Elliot did commit a crime. Enlighten me?

 
ourmanflint said:
https://twitter.com/WALLACHLEGAL/status/920370021397917696

Love him or hate him, you have to admit Wallach doesn't give you wishy washy takes like most of the fantasy analysts out there.
Click to expand...
Agree. He's not just reporting on this case, I've now followed a few posts of his regarding the legality of gambling.  He's not trying a PR stint, he's giving you his beliefs and what he thinks.  If he's wrong, he's wrong, he's been the best source of updated info as well.

 
Football Jones said:
This is similar to civil cases where the burden of proof is much less. My cousin is a prosecutor & they drop cases all the time where the DA's office believes the accused is guilty. For good reason, our justice system is set up to err on the side of the accused so there needs to be certain things in place before you can find someone guilty regardless of whether they actually are or not. Prime example is the outcome of the OJ trial.

Even as a Cowboys fan, I believe there's probably some history of domestic abuse to some degree. We'll never know, but the NFL did an investigation & concluded there likely was domestic abuse. It is what it is. 

Anyway, I'm of the opinion Dallas should've just taken the suspension at the beginning of the season. They're flirting on the edge of disaster because Zeke isn't getting out of it & they have a better shot at a Super Bowl next season. 
Click to expand...


 This isn't Dallas's decision.  This is a human being who is being accused of domestic violence. Whether he did it or not is anybody's guess. In my opinion there's enough evidence to suggest she's a lying whore but we're not allowed to say that or we get called a misogynistic jerk who is part of the problem.

 If you were accused of a crime as heinous as domestic violence and you are truly innocent, would you take the suspension because of your team Super Bowl chances?   You're gonna walk around for the rest of your life with that brand because it's convenient for your employer? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JIMGET said:
Easy people.  Not a noob with 140 posts, been here for years. I thought I would finally start posting this year, I enjoy the banter in these threads.  As far as contributing "less than zero"...again, take it easy.  I would agree that my post was in no way contributing anything to this thread.  I probably should have just said that there are so many opinions, by experts and non experts, that this topic is getting grating.  And so far, nobody is right or wrong...this situation is just totally stupid.

Judging to the responses to my post, there's also a bit of anger depending on if you own Elliot shares or not.

I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with my posts.  I though this was a place for discussion, regardless if others agree with your points or not.

Hopefully this saga will just end.

Have fun.
Click to expand...
Karma is a #####.  Amirite?

 
Weebs210 said:
The judge is going to read the Brady ruling. Zeke is toast.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't read too much into that.  I didn't see the argument and haven't read much about it.  But I imagine that the NFL kept hammering on that decision and at some point, Judge Crotty may not have had instant recall of all aspects.  So he'd want to go back and review it, especially if he rules in Zeke's favor.  Imagine the outrage if he (and again, I didn't see the hearing) said he wasn't aware of a particular point and didn't read the decision again and ruled in Zeke's favor.  By reading the decision he can credibly say that he read it, considered it, and rejected it -- at least in the context of the TRO hearing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
STEADYMOBBIN 22 said:
 This isn't Dallas's decision.  This is a human being who is been accused of domestic violence. Whether he did it or not is anybody's guess. In my opinion there's enough evidence to suggest she's a lying whore but we're not allowed to say that or we get called a misogynistic jerk who is part of the problem.

 If you were accused of a crime as heinous as domestic violence and you are truly innocent, would you take the suspension because of your team Super Bowl chances?   You're gonna walk around for the rest of your life with that brand because it's convenient for your employer? 
Click to expand...
The problem with that is you're assuming he's innocent. We don't know, period.

I'm just saying the NFL, after an exhaustive investigation, handed down the suspension. Even as a Cowboys fan, I cant imagine the NFL having a grudge against Zeke, JJ, or the Dallas organization in general. It's preposterous. They had to find something significant.

Like I said, it is what it is. Bottom line, they should've taken the suspension at the beginning of this season.

 
@WALLACHLEGAL

As a guest judge subbing for Failla, Judge Crotty may be inclined in a close call to grant the PI, not wanting to limit Failla's options.
Click to expand...
@hotgozfather

Why wouldn't Crotty just grant a TRO for a week until Failla returns?
Click to expand...
@WALLACHLEGAL

That's what I should have said.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm. So the substitute judge could issue TRO until the assigned judge returns from vacation? Was hoping for something more long term but it'll do for now I guess.

 
Football Jones said:
The problem with that is you're assuming he's innocent. We don't know, period.

I'm just saying the NFL, after an exhaustive investigation, handed down the suspension. Even as a Cowboys fan, I cant imagine the NFL having a grudge against Zeke, JJ, or the Dallas organization in general. It's preposterous. They had to find something significant.

Like I said, it is what it is. Bottom line, they should've taken the suspension at the beginning of this season.
Click to expand...
hindsight is 20/20.  JJ stuck up for his player, they felt he was innocent and he very well still could be.  It's been a mess from the start.  The CBA is a joke when you have players suing for collusion for not being on a roster.

 
ourmanflint said:
Hmmmm. So the substitute judge could issue TRO until the assigned judge returns from vacation? Was hoping for something more long term but it'll do for now I guess.
Click to expand...
If this is only delaying the inevitable, wouldn't you rather just have the suspension start now so you have Zeke for fantasy playoffs?

 
iamkoza said:
If this is only delaying the inevitable, wouldn't you rather just have the suspension start now so you have Zeke for fantasy playoffs?
Click to expand...
Yes if I know that it's inevitable but I do not know that at the moment. 2 judges have already bought into his argument and if Crotty is the 3rd, I like his chances with Failla.

 
Football Jones said:
I'm just saying the NFL, after an exhaustive investigation, handed down the suspension. Even as a Cowboys fan, I cant imagine the NFL having a grudge against Zeke, JJ, or the Dallas organization in general. It's preposterous. They had to find something significant.
Click to expand...
To be fair, it could be that there were some indications that he may have done it (but nothing conclusive), and they preferred to err on the side of caution because 1) they wanted to appear they are taking the issue of domestic violence seriously and 2) don't want another Ray Rice type of "black eye" where a smoking gun emerges later.

 
Gottabesweet said:
Yes.  I'm surprised why the substitute judge's vote doesn't count long term. @wakelawyer 
Click to expand...
It's Judge Failla's case and Crotty is only handling it because a decision is required immediately.  Some would argue that Crotty should basically safeguard the case and not do anything to limit what Failla can do.  That hasn't been my experience.  I would imagine that Crotty is handling it as he would handle his own case.    

As for the strength of his "vote," his ruling will stand until another Court overturns it or reconsiders it.  And if someone were to go to Failla next week and ask her to reconsider the Crotty ruling, it is very likely that Failla would defer to Crotty on that application because it is his order that would be being challenged.

 
Dr. Octopus said:
To be fair, it could be that there were some indications that he may have done it (but nothing conclusive), and they preferred to err on the side of caution because 1) they wanted to appear they are taking the issue of domestic violence seriously and 2) don't want another Ray Rice type of "black eye" where a smoking gun emerges later.
Click to expand...
My thoughts as well.  After that Ray Rice/Giants kicker, they felt the need to suspend a player for public perception alone.

 
Dr. Octopus said:
To be fair, it could be that there were some indications that he may have done it (but nothing conclusive), and they preferred to err on the side of caution because 1) they wanted to appear they are taking the issue of domestic violence seriously and 2) don't want another Ray Rice type of "black eye" where a smoking gun emerges later.
Click to expand...
I understand your point, but they nailed Josh Brown earlier so it's obvious to the public it's a big concern of theirs.

To believe Zeke is innocent, you have to be believe there's some kind of conspiracy or something & I'm just not buying that.

 
Football Jones said:
I understand your point, but they nailed Josh Brown earlier so it's obvious to the public it's a big concern of theirs.

To believe Zeke is innocent, you have to be believe there's some kind of conspiracy or something & I'm just not buying that.
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily believe he's innocent (I actually have no clue) but I'm just giving you an alternative theory that's pretty plausible. If they really had some kind of slam dunk evidence wouldn't law enforcement in the jurisdiction be interested in seeing it?

It's also possible he's guilty as hell of course.

 
Football Jones said:
I understand your point, but they nailed Josh Brown earlier so it's obvious to the public it's a big concern of theirs.

To believe Zeke is innocent, you have to be believe there's some kind of conspiracy or something & I'm just not buying that.
Click to expand...
Also agree, NFL players obviously have money and have been brushing over incidents that people get paid off under the table for years (speculation)

However in the rare case an NFL player does get exploited it'll backfire. Possibly this case.  I believe he did it.  I just don't agree with the mess of the NFL and how they handled it so am rooting for the NFLPA to prevail THIS season.  (Yes I own him, but thoughts regardless)

 
Dr. Octopus said:
I don't necessarily believe he's innocent (I actually have no clue) but I'm just giving you an alternative theory that's pretty plausible. If they really had some kind of slam dunk evidence wouldn't law enforcement in the jurisdiction be interested in seeing it?

It's also possible he's guilty as hell of course.
Click to expand...
All I can say is the burden of proof is less in non-criminal cases. Lots of tricky strings to pull to get a conviction in court even if a defendant is truly guilty.

I'll admit there's a lot of ways to look at this thing, but I keep coming back to the results of the NFL's exhaustive investigation.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
WiDDoW_MaKeR said:
Really? I would love for you to explain this comment. Especially considering that there hasn't been a single piece of hard evidence that incriminated Elliott in this case. I have a STRONG feeling that you won't reply with an explanation. 

BTW, I stand by every comment that I made. You are taking my quote out of context, where I had already explained exactly what I was referencing toward. By saying "in the eyes of the investigators" I meant, clearly they didn't find evidence to prove that it happened. The only real evidence in this case, is the evidence that directly conflicts with the story of the accuser. At no point in this entire investigation has Zeke been accused of lying, covering up, etc... Not only has he cooperated with the entire case, he even went above and beyond with his honesty in revealing that he did drugs in college, which he didn't really need to do. That only speaks volumes of his honesty, that he was willing to admit something that stains his character, even when he really could have avoided that question, or lied. So, considering that all of the evidence is on Elliott's side.... and that the evidence conflicts with the accuser... AND the fact that there is clear evidence of the accuser asking a friend to also lie to the police... on top of the fact that more evidence came out later where she was talking to another friend about blackmailing Elliott for money with their sex tapes.... I would LOVE to hear why you believe that the investigators probably believe that Elliot did commit a crime. Enlighten me?
Click to expand...
I don't have specific knowledge of the Elliott case.  I'm speaking in general terms.  And what I'm telling you is that very often, investigators believe a crime has been committed, the accused is guilty, yet the DA chooses not to file charges, because their high burden of proof can't be met (for any number of reasons).

Is Elliott one such person that's actually guilty but not charged?  I don't know.  I'm not assuming he is or isn't.

My point is, you shouldn't assume (as you have done) that he is innocent because no charges were filed, and you definitely should not assume that no charges means that investigators think no crime was committed.

 
@Frank_Cawley  The flip side is a fill-judge usually takes the safest approach.  A TRO is an extraordinary remedy that is not the safest route.

 
Gottabesweet said:
@Frank_Cawley  The flip side is a fill-judge usually takes the safest approach.  A TRO is an extraordinary remedy that is not the safest route.
Click to expand...


I don't agree with this.  TROs to preserve the status quo are preferred.  And that's what is at stake here.  And, by their very nature, they are limited in duration.

As for the judge, I disagree with the comments that this judge will just be a caretaker.  Judge's take their job seriously.  And all judges should be able to handle all cases.  Given that this case just started, Crotty shouldn't be holding back anything.  He'll handle it like his case.  At best, if he thinks that there is any concern or that it's a really close call, he may grant the TRO, order additional briefing and bring the parties back next week.  By that time Crotty and Failla would decide who would handle the hearing, with Failla likely taking over.

 
davearm said:
I don't have specific knowledge of the Elliott case.  I'm speaking in general terms.  And what I'm telling you is that very often, investigators believe a crime has been committed, the accused is guilty, yet the DA chooses not to file charges, because their high burden of proof can't be met (for any number of reasons).

Is Elliott one such person that's actually guilty but not charged?  I don't know.  I'm not assuming he is or isn't.

My point is, you shouldn't assume (as you have done) that he is innocent because no charges were filed, and you definitely should not assume that no charges means that investigators think no crime was committed.
Click to expand...
So, just as I said. You wouldn't give an explanation for your comment.

Why don't you know the specifics of this case? They are public and readily available.   

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JohnnyU
RB Quinshon Judkins, CLE
28 29 30
Replies
1K
Views
69K
Faust
Faust
T
Travdogg's final 2025 mock draft (3 rounds) (post draft grades on page 2)
2
Replies
68
Views
5K
BassNBrew
BassNBrew
JohnnyU
RB Isaiah Davis, Jets
Replies
32
Views
4K
Faust
Faust

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top